THE CHAIRMAN. Have they raised sufficient funds to proceed with the memorial project? Answer. We understand from recent conversations with chapel representatives that fund raising has not yet commenced. THE CHAIRMAN. Have they requested the Administrator of NASA to effect a transfer of land? Answer. The Chapel Corporation has not yet requested the transfer of the land. THE CHAIRMAN. Dr. Fletcher, in the fiscal years 1971, 1972, and 1973 authorization acts the Congress placed the limitation within the authority for research and program management on the amount which may be available for personnel and related costs. It is noted that your draft legislation for fiscal year 1974 authorization has omitted this limitation. What is your objection to the inclusion of such a limitation within the Research and Program Management appropriation? Answer. The language of section 1(c) of the current Authorization Act, which limits the amount available for personnel and related costs, and the related limitation in section 4(b) of that same Act, were not included in the 1974 Authorization Bill we are recommending in view of our opinion that such a limitation is unnecessary for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1973. NASA is already limited by the Executive Office of the President in the number of civil service personnel it may employ and, thus, the Congressional monetary limitation could present an unnecessary problem of administration. In effect, to comply with the Congressional limitation, the agency could in certain eventualities be required to take steps early in the fiscal year to reduce the work force by a number of employees in excess of the end-of-year limitation, in order to be certain that sufficient funds would remain available at the end of the year to pay the benefits to which the separated or reduced-in-force employees may be entitled. Otherwise, there could be a conflict between the Congressional limitation and the Civil Service Regulations. Under the latter, the employees would be entitled to benefits, and under the former, no funds in excess of those specified would be available for such benefits. THE CHAIRMAN. Dr. Fletcher, H.R. 554 would amend the Space Act to prohibit NASA from reporting as excess any land having estimated value in excess of $50,000 unless a period of 30 days has passed after notifying the Congress of its intent to dispose of such land. Do you know of any reason or would this work any hardship on NASA if this legislation were enacted and the requirement imposed on NASA? Answer. NASA would interpose no objection to this legislation. Sections 3 and 4 of NASA's annual authorization acts contain similar reporting provisions which apply to the reprogramming of funds. The filing of reports with Congress under these sections has not proven to be an administrative burden. It is NASA's policy to fully inform the Congress of significant program actions, and we do not believe that the submission of reports to Congress on excess domestic real estate, as contemplated by H.R. 554, would constitute an undue burden. THE CHAIRMAN. Dr. Fletcher on January 12, 1972, Dr. Low furnished the committee a report of its Facilities Management Review Committee and stated that the recommendations were approved for implementation. Recognizing that certain of the recommendations are being implemented in the authorization bill, could you give the committee a status report on the implementation of the other recommendations which were adopted by NASA top management as a result of that study? Answer. The study report of the Facilities Management Review Committee contained 32 recommendations. In addition to the structuring of the CoF budget requests beginning in FY 1973 in accordance with the report recommendations, all other recommendations requiring positive actions by NASA have been implemented. Principal among those actions are the following: 1. Issuance of a NASA Policy Directive reaffirming agency policies in facility matters. 2. Promulgation of revised definitions of terms and formats for agency use in processing and documenting facility projects and major equipment acquisition actions. 3. Establishment of uniform requirements, at the Headquarters and field levels, for review and approval of all facility projects. 4. Establishment of a NASA Facilities Review Board to assist the Deputy Administrator in matters regarding facility and major equipment requirements. 5. Modification of reporting systems to provide additional information requested by Congress on NASA facility projects and major equipment acquisitions. 6. Establishment of an Office of Supply and Equipment Management which will have agency-wide functional responsibility for the management of NASA personal property including NASA-owned personal property in the possession of contractors. 7. Issuance of a new NASA Policy Directive which reaffirms agency policies concerning equipment utilization and establishing an agency wide Equipment Visibility System. Some of the recommendations have been implemented by the issuance of interim guidelines. NASA is currently in the process of converting those interim guidelines to more formal management issuances. THE CHAIRMAN. Dr. Fleicher, would you please furnish for the record a NASA organization chart and an organization chart for each of the principal offices of the Agency? [The material requested follows:] |